Twisted History of Python Packaging
speakerdeck.com
Twisted History of Python Packaging
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: Twisted History of Python Packaging
#2Here's the video of the talk (PyCon Canada 2012): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpBaZKSODFA&feature=plcp
Re: Twisted History of Python Packaging
#3I did not see in the presentation the following code snippet:
"from twisted.internet import protocol, reactor"
Somehow I feel cheated... ;) :P
Re: Twisted History of Python Packaging
#4Here is the video from PyCon Canada 2012 (with download link and such): http://pyvideo.org/video/1601/twisted-history-of-python-pack...
Re: Twisted History of Python Packaging
#5Theres also Bento - http://cournape.github.com/Bento/html/index.html which is well designed. Disclaimer - David C is a friend.
Re: Twisted History of Python Packaging
#6In the Ruby world, a common heuristic for problems is:
1) Can the language do this for me? 2) If not, is there a gem that does it? 3) If not, can I make one?
The tools to make it easy to get and share gems and manage dependencies are a huge boost for all Rubyists.
Here's hoping that Python devs, who already have a very nice language to work with, can unite around an equally set of package tools.
Re: Twisted History of Python Packaging
#7Python's not awesome packaging back in the easy_install days really put me off of using django as much as I could have. I liked python a lot, but I ended up in ruby more because gems were a much nicer way to go and bundler made it nice. Good to see python catching up a bit in that regard, but I enjoy ruby and Sinatra too much to switch back at this point.
Re: Twisted History of Python Packaging
#8Here's the video of the talk (PyCon Canada 2012): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpBaZKSODFA&feature=plcp
Thankyou.
I find it somewhat frustrating to follow a link that sounds interesting only to find a slide deck that makes little sense to me without the talk that goes with it.
Re: Twisted History of Python Packaging
#9It's hard to tell with just the slides (and no talk), but it seems like this isn't presenting the complete/correct picture. Pip can use distribute or setuptools - it's not exactly an alternative as slide 31 makes it seem from just the text.
On a higher level, while it's interesting to know the evolution that things have taken, it's really not that complicated anymore - I haven't run into issues with Python packaging with ages; since pip is essentially fully featured (even including uninstallation), and pip is capable of working from source, I don't run into any issues when I use virtualenv (as everyone should be doing - and as is integrated into CPython since 3.3 anyway).
Python packaging has experimented with several different approaches, but it seems to have found the magical combination - in fact, I often miss the virtualenv + pip approach when working with other packaging systems in other languages (such as Haskell's cabal).
Re: Twisted History of Python Packaging
#10I'm a relative newcomer to python. I've been successfully using pip, and more recently pip+virtualenv to install packages. There haven't been many speedbumps so far, though I'm not hitting the system that hard. I do miss the "Gemfile" type of abstraction that Ruby or CocoaPods provides.
That said, the other day I tried to figure out how to package a bit of code I wanted to make reusable. It was a complete clusterfk. No two documents gave the same instructions, the instructions I did find were confusing and incomplete, and there was no obvious place to figure out what the "state of the art" of python packaging is.
I still want to package this module up, but it doesn't seem worth the effort so far.